60fps locked, on a 60hz monitor, or 72fps locked on a 144hz monitor

[raknarius]

im going to get a pwm free monitor from benq 24 inch 1080p

both are 1ms have pwm free and are designed for gamers.

r series is 60hz 200 bucks
z series is 144hz 350 bucks

question is if I played locked at 72fps on a 144hz will I notice less motion blur and a better gaming experience over the 60fps locked on the 60hz monitor, worth the extra 150 or almost double the price?

btw I play all type games, I play mmos fps, rts etc equally mixed up.



(note I do want least motion blur within reason why im buying a 1ms gaming monitor since im only gaming on this pc)

(although ips are surely more accurate colors, I don't care what shade of green the troll is long as I can see it and kill it lol)

 

[bystander]

You may find that if you have a 144hz monitor, using V-sync and locking your FPS is less needed. A lot of people find they cannot notice tearing with fast monitors. This would reduce latency a great deal, because V-sync at your refresh cap causes a great deal of latency.

You may even like that BenQ monitor with lightboost locked at 85hz. Lightboost greatly reduces motion blur, even on 1ms monitors.

If you have a Nvidia card, another option, which would remove the locked refresh rate, is G-sync. These will be coming soon at reasonable pricing (currently they are $450-550, but will soon be $400 or less for the Asus VG248QE replacement).

 

[raknarius]

blurbusters says lightboost only helps with 100fps ore higher, counts me out
im not using vsync to lock my fps. but could
I doubt the asus gsync at less then 400 bucks will be avabile in the next 30days which I need my monitor asap

so is 72fps on 144hz monitor > 60fps on 60hz monitor, worth 150 bucks?

 

[bystander]

If you are not using V-sync, why are you going to be locked at 72 FPS? Without V-sync, you get tearing regardless if you are locked at 60/72 FPS or not. In fact, locked at 60/72 FPS will cause horribly noticeable tearing because the tear will barely move.

I'd say go 144hz, but forget capping the FPS at 72, that is a bad plan. It only makes sense if you use V-sync.

Also, the new BenQ G-sync monitors at least, will have Lightboost at 85hz and higher, which is another G-sync mode. I do not know if that BenQ monitor will have it available at 85hz or not.

And sorry, I didn't notice your name. You've been trying to figure this out for a month, with at least 20+ threads on the topic. I figured you'd know what you want by now.

 

[raknarius]

sometimes its hard to get a straight answer, I was looking for a specific comparison and here we are talking about lightboost, and here we are talking about locked vs not locked. so how about this

what would look better 72 fps not locked on a 144hz monitor, or 60fps not locked on a 60hz monitor, no lightboots enabled.

 

[bystander]

Assuming no V-sync. The 144hz monitor with an average of 72 FPS will look better, assuming equal quality panels. The 144hz refresh rate will reduce tearing and make the game more responsive.

 

[bystander]

sometimes its hard to get a straight answer, I was looking for a specific comparison and here we are talking about lightboost, and here we are talking about locked vs not locked.

The only reason I brought up a few different things is if you do get the BenQ monitor, you'll gain Lightboost.

I also brought up the V-sync issue, because you were vague, and you will come back here complaining about why you are getting this tear across your screen once you used it with FPS locked at 60 on a 60hz monitor, and the same with 72 FPS locked at 144hz if you do not use V-sync.

It is important that you compare with what you will use, and in this case, your plan was flawed.

 

[raknarius]

ahh thanks for that, so if I used vsync, in either case id get tearing?

also if you could, you say it would be better on the 144hz panel, how much better, super noticeable, do you think its worth the cash since I wont be using lightboost?

 

[raknarius]

btw I did by a dell 27inch monitor, man it was too big, even got motion sickness lol sent that back, had some light bleed. lol so project still in progress

 

[bystander]

ahh thanks for that, so if I used vsync, in either case id get tearing?

Without V-sync, there is always tearing. Locking your FPS at your refresh rate, makes that tear stationary, or close to it, making it look worse.

also if you could, you say it would be better on the 144hz panel, how much better, super noticeable, do you think its worth the cash since I wont be using lightboost?

Personal opinion. And the reason you've made so many posts on the topic and keep coming back.

I say, "it is worth it. It looks better."
Person B says, "it is not worth it."
You make a new thread.

It is worth it to me. Do you think it is worth it to you?

 

[bystander]

There is no clear answer. This choice is entirely up to you at this point. We've all said plenty to all your threads. You should realize by now that we cannot pick for you.

Is less tearing and more responsive gaming worth $150 to you? That is all you have to answer.

 

[raknarius]

ok what about to you, if you were to buy a gaming monitor with those two choices alone

 

[bystander]

ok what about to you, if you were to buy a gaming monitor with those two choices alone

I've told you a few times in this post.

I would get the 144hz monitor.

 

[raknarius]

oh ok thanks